State v. Harding, 2023 Ohio 753

Harding was convicted after a traffic stop in which troopers found 123 pounds of marijuana in the vehicle he was driving and was sentenced to an aggregate eight-year prison term for felony possession and possession of criminal tools.
Central dispute involved the arresting trooper’s dash‑cam video: Harding alleged the video presented at suppression and trial differed from the copy sent to his expert (Primeau Forensics) and that backseat telemetry and audio were withheld or altered.
Harding raised suppression, sufficiency, sentencing, and ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal; this court affirmed and the Ohio Supreme Court denied leave to file a delayed appeal.
Harding filed three successive petitions for postconviction relief (PCR) alleging altered video, Brady violations, fraud on the court, and counsel neglect; each petition was denied by the trial court as barred by res judicata and the denials were affirmed on appeal.
The trial court denied the third PCR without an evidentiary hearing, finding Harding’s claims merely re‑packaged earlier arguments and noting the defense had possession of the raw video and expert materials; the court also found any procedural defect in the state’s filing (undated certificate of service) harmless.
The Twelfth District affirmed, holding res judicata bars Harding’s repeated claims and that any filing defect did not affect substantial rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Harding)	Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Court)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying Harding's third PCR without an evidentiary hearing where he alleged fraud, altered evidence, and newly discovered evidence (Civ.R. 60(B)(5)/PCR)	Video shown at trial was altered; Primeau’s report was withheld/delayed; Brady violations and fraud-on-the-court justify relief and an evidentiary hearing	Claims are barred by res judicata because the video issues and expert-report assertions were raised or could have been raised earlier; Harding is re‑packaging prior arguments	Affirmed. Res judicata bars the claims; no evidentiary hearing required for a petition that is barred
Whether the trial court erred by accepting the State’s opposition memorandum that had an undated certificate of service (Crim.R.49(C))	The State’s memorandum is procedurally defective (missing date) and should not be considered	Any certificate‑of‑service omission was harmless; the court did not rely on the memorandum and fully reviewed the record	Affirmed. Any filing defect was harmless error and did not affect substantial rights

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State ex rel. Penland v. Dinkelacker, 162 Ohio St.3d 59 (postconviction relief judgments are final, appealable orders and failure to issue findings can be raised on appeal)
State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217 (discussed in context of final appealability and procedural posture)